Academia, Free Speech

“Woke Dysphoria” at Concordia? University Suspends Professor After Criticism of Diversity Priorities

There is a major free speech fight brewing at Concordia University in Wisconsin where Professor (and Minister) Dr. Gregory Schulz was suspended after he criticized “woke dysphoria” as part of the search for a new university president. Ironically, Schulz is still listed as one of the approved candidates for the position.

There is nothing more unnerving for free speech advocates than demands to “recant” viewpoints as a condition for one’s employment or freedom. However, that is the demand of the university, according to counsel for Shultz.

Shultz was suspended with pay after he wrote a February 14 article for Christian News. In the article, he complained that Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE) policies would move the university away from its core values:

“When our BoR committees announce their intentions to install a president who exhibits a “demonstrated belief in and commitment to equity and inclusion” and promotes racialized “diversity in all its myriad forms,” they are announcing their plan to disrupt the authority of the biblical text and in this way to transform our university from an institution of Lutheran higher education to … who knows what. They are announcing their intention to transform this LCMS institution into a DIE-ing institution.”

I happen to disagree with much of the article, but that does not have any bearing on the free speech and academic freedom concerns raised by this action.

Shultz not only is espousing his deeply held academic and religious views, but also views shared by other academics. Yet, many professors are reluctant to voice such sentiments publicly out of fear of what has unfolded at Concordia.

We have seen others targeted for questioning diversity policies. There is a clear effort to chill such opposing speech and many professors have supported the mob. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech.  CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,”  Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech.

Anyone who raises such objections is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. The concern is not that such protests occur. They are wrong in their demands and their inherent intolerance for opposing views but they are also the exercise of free speech. Rather the concern is that universities have repeatedly failed to defend rights of faculty members or offered tepid support for such rights.

Some like Concordia are accused of actively targeting dissenters. Few academics want to risk being tagged in this way. There is a new orthodoxy that has taken hold of our universities and advocates threaten everything that an intellectual values if they speak out: publications, conferences, even their academic positions. The result is widespread fear that universities will not support dissenting voices on such issues.

One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

Concordia has been accused of denying Schulz even the most minimal due process protections in taking this action. He is being represented by free speech advocates. In the meantime, he will remain in the curious position of being investigated by a university that is actively considering him as the next university president.

 

71 thoughts on ““Woke Dysphoria” at Concordia? University Suspends Professor After Criticism of Diversity Priorities”

  1. I see that Concordia is offering a new Doctorate program for
    Phd. Homo Sapiens Cucumis Sativus
    for those who are interested in a Phd. in the field of being a
    Human Cucumber.

    Spoiler Alert: Some of you may already qualify.

    1. Well, considering the state of affairs the nation is in, we are in a pickle.

  2. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) , Inequity, and [affirmative] Exclusion. Lose your Pro-Choice (“ethical “) religion. #HateLovesAbortion

  3. Turley says:

    “There is a new orthodoxy that has taken hold of our universities and advocates threaten everything that an intellectual values if they speak out: publications, conferences, even their academic positions. The result is widespread fear that universities will not support dissenting voices on such issues.”

    Here was another dissenting view:

    “Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom- loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.”

    Good speech did not convince those religious and conservative segregationists to think otherwise…. and it won’t convince deliberate liars like Trumpists. Defamation lawsuits will help, but societal penalties such as boycotts and ostracism is necessary.

    1. It is amusing to see a real living case of Trump Derangement Syndrome still out in the open. I am sure this mindless hate fully occupies your mind 24/7. Sad.

      1. And I feel likewise of your BDS- Biden Derangement Syndrome. Maybe your shrink can recommend a good San Francisco shrink for me? I hope we both can get cured soon!

        1. SF, CA? How’s that liberal shithole – not a Trump/individual liberty/rational mind/non-collectivists loser to be found in power there and TADA! shithole. Same as Baltimore, Philly, Chiraq, St Louis… wherever the silvermans and their leaders take hold, shithole is not far behind – every single time. But hey, at least when you slip on human feces and impale yourself with a free needle, it doesn’t seem like 1859. Congrats silverstein, you couldn’t be a better cliche of what ails the nation and now creeping onto the world stage. Sleep well and wonder why history repeats itself.

          1. Beautifully expressed. Typical of Trumpists which explains why Turley is a NeverTrumper like myself. Cheers!

    2. Governor Wallace, much later though but nevertheless, changed his position and regretted his former stance. Good speech leading to deep contemplation may have done the trick.

      1. I know he changed his position later in life, but it took the National Guard to force him to step aside to let the African American teenagers to attend the school. Good speech had failed up to that point; brute force was indispensable.

        1. How did that work out for the AA’s and the non-AAs? Yeah!!!! 80%+ single-parent (at best) households, Yeah, higher incarcerations rates. yeah lower education outcomes (real ones, not the degree-press, fake education. Certain peoples will hide behind equality as long as it serves them and their time is waning…

    3. “It’s the [law], stupid!”

      – James Carville
      _____________

      Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations – they meant it)

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof
      ___________________________________________________________________________________

      That “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, declared martial law and ruled as a despot, as Vladimir Putin is doing today, illegally and through executive orders and proclamations, did not void and nullify the law and fundamental law of the American Founders and Framers. That country, America, awaits restoration to legal status, original intent and legitimacy, which will require the abrogation of the current communist rule.

  4. I think that this is one of your best essays Jonathan. It’s brevity belies its power. In particular, I found these paragraphs to be deadly accurate: “Anyone who raises such objections is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. The concern is not that such protests occur. They are wrong in their demands and their inherent intolerance for opposing views but they are also the exercise of free speech. Rather the concern is that universities have repeatedly failed to defend rights of faculty members or offered tepid support for such rights.

    Some like Concordia are accused of actively targeting dissenters. Few academics want to risk being tagged in this way. There is a new orthodoxy that has taken hold of our universities and advocates threaten everything that an intellectual values if they speak out: publications, conferences, even their academic positions. The result is widespread fear that universities will not support dissenting voices on such issues”. Dead on.

    My own view is that Prof. Gregory Schultz, as a direct participant observer within this living context, should be taken at his word–for they are cautionary, not to an extreme, but in proportion to the threat that Woke Ideology and Woke Theology inroads already secured within his Academic Institution. The B of R reaction to his views speaks volumes to the real time existence of the very leanings against which he rails. The Woke Anaconda has ensnared his leg and is poised to crush and silence his torso.

    That he is already thus ensnared is conformed by your own words: “There is nothing more unnerving for free speech advocates than demands to “recant” viewpoints as a condition for one’s employment or freedom. However, that is the demand of the university, according to counsel for Shultz”.

    As such, I would think his predicament is deserving of even greater empathy, respect and professional solidarity the even your national revelations of his quandary might confer. Thank you for you every thoughtful comments on this matter.

  5. Once again, Turley either hasn’t bothered to look up all of the relevant information or has chosen to omit it.

    Here’s a copy of the university’s letter to Schulz about why he was being suspended, which includes “Insubordination; lying to administration about actions taken,” “Conduct unbecoming a Christian,” and “Not following faculty grievance or dispute process”:
    https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/2022/2/28/one-word-revoco?fbclid=IwAR0GIqqi7Ni-9wGGshXyQjSbrDlVzFXJ-qPdMUTPEkiutdabc79oHYchMMs

    The university has also said “Regarding the suspension of Rev. Dr. Greg Schulz, Concordia University is currently abiding by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod dispute resolution process, under the direction of Rev. Dr. John Wille, president of the South Wisconsin District of the LCMS.”

    1. The letter you linked to says the school is suspending him because students and one faculty member complained about his statements and letters. You’re citing the infractions the school are alleging about his speech.

      1. I should have said “which includes allegations of ‘Insubordination…'”

        The bottom line is that they’ve suspended him because of allegations that he’s broken multiple university policies, and Turley should have included relevant info from the letter along with a link to the letter. It doesn’t serve his readers when he omits so much significant info in discussing these cases.

    2. He was suspended pending an investigation into allegations of the listed infractions. Not because he had committed them; the investigation serves to establish that one way or the other. So, Turley was accurate.

      1. I already noted in my 5:49pm comment that I should have said allegations.

        And no, Turley was not accurate. Turley didn’t acknowledge any of the actual alleged infractions. He briefly referred to what Schulz’s lawyer said about the letter, but he never linked to or quoted any statement from the university.

        1. “Turley didn’t acknowledge any of the actual alleged infractions.”

          +++

          I don’t think there are “actual alleged infractions”.

          There are actual infractions.

          There are alleged infractions.

          You are trying too hard and ended up talking funny.

    3. There is little ‘relevant’ information in the university letter.

      It looks like what one would expect from an administration trying to weave a net with too little string.

      I don’t know what will happen, but I suspect the administration will find discovery to be unpleasant if it comes to that.

  6. Jonathan: “Free speech” comes in many forms. For you it is the right of Minister Greg Schuly to argue that DIE policies at Concordia University are a “plan to disrupt the authority of the biblical text”. I doubt Jesus would have found diversity and inclusion disruptive or contrary to God’s law. That aside, let’s talk about more serious free speech issues.

    In 2020 when more than 70 million voters voted for Biden they were exercising a precious free speech right-the right to vote. On Jan. 6 Donald Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell” to cancel that vote–to keep him in power. For this “incitement of insurrection” Trump was impeached for a second time. But for you and other Trumpsters Jan. 6 was a peaceful protest that turned into a “riot” by a few crazies who have pled guilty to minor misdemeanors. You even said at the time that Trump’s speech was just an exercise in “free speech”. Through court documents and the work of the House Jan. 6 investigation we now have a clearer picture of what Trump and his supporters actually wanted. Trump promised the crowd he would march with them up to the Capitol. But Trump lied. His daily travel schedule shows that after the “Save America” speech Trump was scheduled to return immediately to the WH. He knew, because he and his supporters planned it in advance, what would happen following the speech–an insurrection resulting in violence. He didn’t want to be accused of leading the insurrection by marching to the Capitol.

    Since then through court docs and the work of the House Jan. 6 Committee we have learned a lot about the extent of Trump’s plans to overturn the election. The unlawful scheme started in the days following the election. The key players were Trump, Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Roger Stone and others. The “shock troops” were led by Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers and Enrique Tarrio leader of the Proud Boys. Rhodes and Tarrio have since been indicted for “seditious conspiracy”. In an ironic twist Meadows is now being accused of his own voter fraud. When he registered to vote he listed a 14 ft. by 16ft. mobile home in Scaly, NC as his residence. It turns out he never lived there. John Eastman and the Jan. 6 Committee are now in court because Eastman has refused to turn over relevant docs about his role in the conspiracy claiming “atty/client privilege”. The Committee is charging Trump and Eastman with criminal conspiracy. Douglas Letter, the Committee’s general counsel, says: “We’re talking about an insurrection that sadly came close to succeeding to overturn a presidential election”.

    As the Jan. 6 investigation unfolds in the coming weeks and months and more people are charged we will learn more about Trump’s conspiracy. The 64 K question is whether any prosecutor, including AG Garland, will want to take the huge unprecedented step of charging a former president. It will require cajones of unprecedented proportions to do that. But alone in terms of “free speech” issues this is a doozy but one you have ignored. Why is that?

  7. I find it interesting JT that you frequently distance yourself from the content of the speech while you are defending the right to speak. I wonder why you find it necessary to share with your readers how you view the content. Are you trying to prevent some cancelling from your audience? Does it really matter what you think of the content in your effort to defend free discourse? It almost seems that you are hiding behind these phrases. If you feel so strongly about the issue why not say something like – “My thoughts on the content are not important”. Let the reader decide where you land. Be brave.

    1. PatWebster asks:

      “ I wonder why you find it necessary to share with your readers how you view the content. Are you trying to prevent some cancelling from your audience?”

      Since you appear to be new around here, you may not realize that Turley takes no questions from his followers. He only lectures. Allow me then to take a stab at your question.

      Turley is a Liberal and a NeverTrumper just so you know. He is a self-described “free speech originalist.” He shares his disavowal of the hateful views that he nonetheless protects because he does not wish to be thought of as endorsing those views. Despite his disapproval of Trumpist views and lies, the Trumpists here want to believe that he supports their attitudes. He doesn’t. Proof of his contempt for Trump was evidenced when Turley characterized Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” long before he ran for president. Turley has never found anything complimentary to say about Trump’s character since. He has called out his continued falsehoods.

      I do believe that Turley is, in fact, concerned about the blowback from his liberal students and faculty at his law school. We can’t know exactly how much antipathy he has faced since joining the ranks of the propagandist Fox News with its bevy of rage provocateurs. His oft reminding his readers that he disapproves of Trumpist views will not spare him the ignominy of having enabled and profited from the hateful views of his Fox brethren Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, Mark Levin, Jessie Watters, etc.

      1. I’m not really that new to being around here and the question is rhetorical. I never expect him to answer but I would at least hope that he reads the comments from time to time.

        1. We can only hope that he does, but I doubt that such a busy man can afford to waste his time.

            1. Dennis McIntyre GAF, and so does Svelaz, Paul, Natacha, and one particular Anonymous person too. So, no, I won’t STFU. You may ignore my contributions, but you will not cancel me.

              1. Ya know, Jeff, sometimes I think your comments are kind of nutty, sometimes thoughtful. But, I for one, as well as others commenting here, Trumptists or otherwise, will defend your right to say/write them. However, there are some, becoming many, in academia, media, and politics, who will say that a person does not have the right to say/write/think something if it offends, well, anyone, or does not conform to the current orthodoxy. Whenever I hear about someone being suspended, fired, ostracized, boycotted, etc because of something they wrote or said I think back to the French Revolution and Stalin’s Great Purge and say “be careful what you wish for” because eventually they will come for you. Many times you refer to the opinions of those on Fox News and criticize Prof. Turley for being on that network. So I have to question if you ever watch any of them you criticize or do you just accept that the criticisms of others on other networks as gospel and are correct and do not investigate further. Since you obviously read this blog I have to think that you do not live in a complete bubble and allow yourself to dip your toe into the pool of alternative opinions (Even if you are from San Francisco).

                1. Karen Ann,

                  Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.

                  Discrimination against hateful speech is absolutely essential to a civil society. Conservatives and Liberals will never agree always what is intolerable, but that is beside the point. Unless citizens can police themselves in their daily life, who will? The government cannot; private people must. Otherwise, blind prejudice and unmitigated hate will abide.

                  I watch Fox prime time reluctantly to know of what I speak.

                  1. So you are the self ordained Chairman of the Neighborhood Watch Committee? “ Unless citizens can police themselves in their daily life, who will? The government cannot; private people must”. Major fail.

                    1. Parents police the school curriculum for intolerable content for children, media networks police themselves from broadcasting defamation, citizens shun and condemn Russian wartime propaganda, and Trumpists call out “fake news.”

                      People discriminate against what they see and hear. They are not allowed to discriminate against certain people as enumerated in the Constitution, as amended.

        2. Pat sorry he doesn’t- he doesn’t even write this stuff anymore let alone read it.

  9. The Constitution does not provide and warrant success or failure in the “pursuit of happiness.”

    The Constitution is neutral.

    The Constitution references undifferentiated people, candidates, officers, etc.

    Differentiating people for the purposes of applying bias, favor, affirmative action, etc., is antithetical and unconstitutional.

    Minorities and women have no legitimate claim to warranted success under the neutral Constitution.

    Success must be merited and earned in the competitive free markets of the private sector.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.

    Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity, or to take from those with abilities and give to those with needs, as required by Karl Marx.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

    – Karl Marx

  10. Churchill use to say,”You can always depend on the Americans to do what’s right, after they’ve tried everything else”.

  13. Why wouldn’t a person’s public utterances and writings be considered by a college hiring committee? JT, you’ve taken “free speech” to an absurd level, first by applying it to a private college (who can devise their own speech norms), and by suggesting that in college hiring decisions, the hiring committee must overlook political and religious viewpoints of candidates. Granted, they should be looking at a wider set of factors. But, if the committee predicts that a specific candidate might not fit the bill, there’s no obligation to overlook his objectionable speech.

    1. You misunderstand JT’s point. The university is free to hire anyone they choose. However, suspending a person from their position based on their speech (criticism of the process) is where the line gets blurred. It is doubtful that the university would have suspended someone for saying that white men should be excluded. In today’s university environment that would be considered a completely rational belief. But to utter something counter to the prevailing viewpoint is currently grounds for suspension and/or termination on many college campuses.The concern is that this environment is suppressing free and open debate as there is a silent majority that would rather say nothing and keep their jobs than to speak up and risk losing everything. That is the antithesis of free speech.

      1. The university’s letter to Schulz about why he was being suspended includes “Insubordination; lying to administration about actions taken,” “Conduct unbecoming a Christian” (it is a Lutheran college), and “Not following faculty grievance or dispute process.” Maybe you shouldn’t assume that the suspension is solely or even primarily about Schulz’s criticism.

  14. Time to remove all support for colleges. NO MORE government support for Student loans, paying off of loans or college based research! Make college private and funded by individuals…if they wish!

      1. You always want to replace dry rot in a building worth saving. Start with all ‘studies’ courses and staff and then work through the ‘humanities ‘.

  15. Can the Democrats just make it official….First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, but their proxies can get you fired from you job and ostracized from society, take your money, jail you and remove your ability to communicate!

  16. Many lefties – especially those in academia – are thugs and bullies.

    Ugly people.

  17. School, school…bo bule…
    Banana fanna foe fools.

    All these stories…about dumb schools…
    It makes me think the law stories are gone.

    Like Red. Fred.. Billy S so dead.
    Or Mary, Mary…
    Is contrary.

  18. To say that disrupting free speech is an expression of free speech is the same as calling the Inquisition an expression of freedom of religion.

    1. McCarthy was fighting a real external threat! Democrats are attempting to destroy America!

      1. That threat was overhyped for political gain by Nixon and McCarthy. Unethical opportunists in all walks of life then copy-catted McCarthy’s commie accusations to attack co-workers they didn’t like, or who were seen as career competitors. People were blacklisted by solopsistic shysters without any real evidence, and because of the ease with which you could be denounced, nobody dared to fight back for several years. On balance, Joe McCarthy was not helping America stay strong, he was sewing division and disunity.

      2. So you believe that Trump was participating in Russian collusion,
        and in fact Clinton Associates* were correct in advancement of “claims of collusion.”
        [the Claiming of Collusion = Red Scare McCarthyism | i.e.: The POTUS is in cahoots with Putin]

        Ok Pal, I get it – More Power to You
        This Guy needs to be Canceled. (Then maybe He’ll understand – When they come for His 2.5%-@-55 and 401K)

        Woke Cancel Culture is just a spin on McCarthyism | The ethnographic ‘Color-Less Scare’.

        Associates*
        Attn. Michael Sussmann, Frm. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)present V.P., Sens.; Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

  20. Disinfectant is what is needed. We have an infestation, much like a plague, and we need a thorough cleaning and purging. No amount of placating and commiserating will end an infestation.

    1. Carman says:

      “Disinfectant is what is needed. We have an infestation, much like a plague”

      You thinking Zyklon B? Reports are that it was very effective at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

      1. Jeff: Right on point! Judging from some of the other comments it appears others are unwilling to tolerate dissent. Even Turley probably would disagree with Carman that what is needed is a “thorough cleaning ( she probably means “cleansing”) and purging”. You know our Democracy is under attack when people can support such views. Under authoritarian and outright fascist regimes dissent is not tolerated. It is purged by going to jail or being killed. If that is not what Carman meant she should so state.

        1. Dennis,

          Carman chose her words carefully. She knows full well the implications of using the words “infestation” and “disinfectant,” namely, that NeverTrumpers are vermin to be exterminated. Let her deny it. She won’t. Nor will the Trumpists here condemn such hateful rhetoric.

          As with Putin, we should take such Trumpist threats seriously. If there is no limit to what you can say, it is easy to believe there is no limit to what you can do.

          1. Jeff: When I went to college in the late 1950’s and early 60s I got a part time job in the university library ( which reveals my probable age) . A condition of employment mandated that I sign a paper saying I was not a “Communist” and did not advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. I went to the ACLU with my complaint that that was an infringement of my free speech rights. The ACLU refused to take my case. Which just proves that even then an organization dedicated to protecting the 1st Amendment was not immune to the effects of McCarthyism and the House Un-American Activities Committee. It wasn’t until 1975 that HUAC was abolished. In 1961-62 when many of us students spoke out and protested the early stages of the Vietnam War the hammer came down. I was visited by 2 gum shoes from the FBI who wanted to know about the books I read and with whom I associated. This happened to a lot of us. I declined to answer their questions. The next thing I knew my mother called, in tears, saying they FBI had visited with her and my father warming them I could get in a lot of trouble for my otherwise lawful activities. It was a clear attempt to intimidate me into silence.

            I only mention all this because I doubt Prof. Turley or any of his loyal followers understand how free speech was under more direct attack back then–more than anything he complains about today. It took years of struggle to to overcome the effects of the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s and 60s to protect the 1st Amendment rights–rights Turley, et. al. now take for granted. I know about it because I lived through that era where many had to practice self-censorship to avoid investigation and intimidation by the government. So I become alarmed when I hear people like Carman who call for the “cleaning” and “purging” of people like us. That’s dangerous rhetoric and why we must speak out against it. Thx for giving me your back.

            1. Dennis,

              Thanks for your personal history. Fortunately, I was too young to experience McCarthyism, but I can get a good sense of it living through Trumpism.

              If you have not heard this radio show, you might get a kick out of this:

              https://youtu.be/q4sUlmJC6iw

              My criticism with Turley is his conflating *good faith opposing viewpoints* and *bad faith lies or prejudice.* The former is amenable to good speech (as Turley would propose), but the latter is decidedly not. Turley never countenances how citizens should react to liars and haters.

              1. Jeff: Well taken. But notice that in this chat room those of us who treat “free speech” seriously are considered beyond the pale. Sam says my “ideology is responsible for decades of mass murder” and then dismisses me as a “Marxist”. No reasoned argument but name calling. Sam doesn’t know anything about my “ideology”. But that doesn’t stop him from putting me in the same category as those responsible for “decades of mass murder”. I assume here is is speaking of Joseph Stalin. I opposed Stalin and I oppose Putin and similar autocrats. If Sam and his ilk had their way we would be “purged” for expressing opposing POVs. Even Turley, I would think, would support our right to disagree. But Sam and those similarly ideologically inclined are not interested in facts or reasoned argument. They depend on name calling to try to shut us down. But take heart. We are getting under their skins!

                1. Dennis,

                  I agree that name-calling is wrong-headed and lazy. I could be accused of name-calling when I call Trumpists (followers of Trump) “liars.” However, I am not calling them a name; I am describing what they are doing, namely, lying about the election being stolen and lying that Trump is NOT an inveterate liar. I don’t call Trumpists “fascists” though I do mock some as “American Nazis” when I am called an “American Marxist” by them.

            2. “. . . I hear people like Carman who call for the “cleaning” and “purging” of people like us.”

              If it weren’t for the fact that your ideology is responsible for decades of mass murder, it would be humorous to see a Marxist complain about “cleaning” and “purging.”

Comments are closed.